Bibliographic record
Abstract
Basic literacy, the mere ability to read and write, is relatively easily mastered by children so long as the signs of the writing system map on to comprehensible properties of the learner's speech and appropriate learning environments are available (Venezky, 2004). But that skill in itself has little to do with turning literacy into an instrument of use and power. Reading is a social practice in which readers and writers engage with text for quite different purposes and some of these ways of dealing with written texts are sufficiently different from the more basic processes of learning to read and write that they are more correctly described by a second meaning of literacy, namely, literacy as an acquaintance with literature or academic literacy; meaning the ability to deal with an encyclopedic range of written materials. The community of readers evolve conventions for reading and interpreting documents and texts as well as for writing new texts that may take years to master. There is a third concept of literacy: societal literacy (Elwert, 2001), which refers to the kind of literacy that underwrites a modern bureaucratic society. The criteria to be met, if one is to be judged as achieving any of these concepts of literacy, are importantly different. Besides, the concepts of basic and advanced levels of literacy are embarrassingly close to those at play in much current educational practice. And, like that practice, they are limited in the sense that highlighting the criteria leaves hidden the social communicative practices that these criteria are designed to serve. The danger of enumerating criteria is that, too readily, they become the direct object of instruction rather than remaining, as they should be, specialised devices for advancing communication and understanding in particular domains.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".